This page contains summaries of research articles relevant to male victims of intimate partner violence. The NenWeb Online Journal contains articles available to the public on the Internet. This page lists other academicles from academic journals, which are not freely available. You may locate them through any good university or public library.

Findings

Article

Abstract

Typologies derived from studies of male IPV perpetrators may provide useful guidance for the investigation of female IPV perpetration.

The goal of this naturalistic study was to examine heterogeneity among female and male civil psychiatric patients with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration. Participants were 567 patients drawn from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (J. Monahan et al., 2001). The authors examined subtype composition among 138 women and 93 men with positive histories of IPV and compared these groups with 111 women and 225 men with no histories of IPV. Findings for men and women were consistent with reports from studies of male perpetrators in forensic and community settings in that generally violent/antisocial, borderline/dysphoric, and family only/low-psychopathology subtypes of perpetrators were identified in both men and women. This study provides preliminary evidence for the generalizability of typologies derived from nonpsychiatric partner violence perpetrators to psychiatric populations and suggests that typologies derived from studies of male IPV perpetrators may provide useful guidance for the investigation of female IPV perpetration.

Female perpetrators are more likely to use a weapon during a domestic violence incident (369 cases reported to police).

The study's aim was to determine the predictors of weapon use during domestic violence incidents that were reported to the police. Randomly selected cases (N=369) from the San Diego County Sheriff's department comprised the study sample. The predictor variables for weapon use included relationship type, relationship length, suspect drug or alcohol use, and restraining order status at the time of the attack. Suspect sex and race were included as control variables. A logistic regression demonstrated that victims who had restraining orders against the perpetrator were more likely to have a weapon used against them in a domestic violence incident. Suspect sex was significant in an unanticipated direction, with female perpetrators being more likely to use a weapon during a domestic violence incident.

Control accounted significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for all three relationship categories, intimate terrorism (IT), violent resistance (VR) and common couple violence (CCV), for female as well as male perpetrators.

Using data obtained from women's shelter residents, male and female students, and male prisoners, this study investigated the association between non-violent controlling behaviors, physical aggression, and violence towards a spouse (N=264). It was predicted that only men and women involved in intimate terrorism (Johnson, Violence Against Women, 11(12):1003-1018, 2006) would use controlling aggression, and that physical aggression used by those involved in situational couple violence would be unrelated to controlling behavior. Contrary to predictions derived from Johnson's theory, regression analysis showed that control accounted significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for all three relationship categories. Some support was provided, however, as it was found that the pattern of both interrelationships of the five types of controlling behaviors, and control and physical aggression, supported Johnson's distinction.

Large effect sizes existed between perpetration of physical abuse and five risk factors (emotional abuse, forced sex, illicit drug use, attitudes condoning marital violence, and marital satisfaction). Moderate effect sizes were observed between perpetration of physical abuse and six risk factors (traditional sex-role ideology, anger/hostility, history of partner abuse, alcohol use, depression, and career/life stress). Finally, a large effect size was found between physical violence victimization and the victim using violence toward her partner, while moderate effect sizes were calculated between female physical violence victimization and depression and fear of future abuse.

This review examined 85 studies to identify risk factors most strongly related to intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization. This article presents results from a meta-analytic review designed to summarize data on intimate partner violence (IPV) risk factors gained between the years 1980 to 2000, and to identify areas that need additional empirical work. Dutton's (1995a) nested ecological theory guided the choice of risk factors examined in this study. Dutton's system has four levels of factors relating to individual offenders and their environment: the macrosystem level -- includes cultural values and beliefs; the exosystem level -- includes the offender's formal and informal social structures; the microsystem level - characteristics of the immediate setting in which the abuse took place; and the ontogenic level - specific to the abuser's developmental history. For this study, the exosystem, microsystem, and ontogenic levels were examined for both offenders and victims of IPV. A literature search was conducted to identify studies for possible inclusion in the review. Based on a set of established criteria, 85 studies were examined to identify risk factors most strongly related to intimate partner abuse perpetration and victimization. A review of the studies produced 308 distinct effect sizes which were then used to calculate composite effect sizes for 16 perpetration and 9 victimization risk factors. The review found that large effect sizes existed between perpetration of physical abuse and five risk factors (emotional abuse, forced sex, illicit drug use, attitudes condoning marital violence, and marital satisfaction). Moderate effect sizes were observed between perpetration of physical abuse and six risk factors (traditional sex-role ideology, anger/hostility, history of partner abuse, alcohol use, depression, and career/life stress). Finally, a large effect size was found between physical violence victimization and the victim using violence toward her partner, while moderate effect sizes were calculated between female physical violence victimization and depression and fear of future abuse. Study limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed. References and 4 tables

Witnessing parental violence, relationship satisfaction, and length of relationships were not significantly correlated with men's use of physical violence. Witnessing parental violence was significantly but weakly correlated with female violence. 31.8% of the males and 411.4% of the females reported being physically violent toward their partner in the past year.

For both genders, partner's use of physical aggression was a highly significant predictor of their own use of physical violence. Partner's use of psychological aggression was not a significant predictor for males, but was for females. It appears that men's use of psychological aggression has a much stronger impact on a woman's likelihood of using physical aggression than does women's use of psychological aggression on male violence. These findings may be explained by society's view of acceptable behavior for each gender. Traditionally, if a man says something offensive or belittling and a woman uses physical violence as a response, for example by slapping him, society is much more accepting than if it were the man using physical violence against a woman for something she said.

This study examined the importance of witnessing parental violence, experiencing childhood violence, problems with alcohol, length of relationship, relationship satisfaction, anger management skills, and partner's use of physical and psychological aggression for male and female perpetrators of dating violence in college. For males, partner's use of physical aggression, low levels of anger management skills, and high relationship satisfaction were the strongest predictors of physical aggression. For females, partner's uses of physical and psychological aggression were the most important predictors of their use of physical aggression. The model in this study was a good predictor of male violence, accounting for 81% of the variance; however, it only accounted for 51% of the variance in female violence.

Gender is an especially important moderator variable in understanding the relationship between marital satisfaction and IPV

A meta-analysis investigating the relationship between marital satisfaction and intimate partner violence (IPV) was conducted with 32 articles. Overall, a small-to-moderate effect size (r = -.27) indicated a significant and negative relationship existed between marital satisfaction and IPV. Moderator analyses found no differences between effect size based on construct examined (discord or satisfaction). However, the magnitudes of observed effect sizes were influenced by other moderator variables, including the use of standardized versus non-standardized measures, gender of the offender and victim, role in the violence (perpetrator versus victim), and sample type (clinical versus community). The data suggests that gender is an especially important moderator variable in understanding the relationship between marital satisfaction and IPV.

Female freshmen: mutual IPV was more common than asymmetrical IPV. Women in mutually violent relationships perpetrated more frequent acts of physical aggression than those in female-only. Only partner antisocial behavior and psychological aggression were linked to female-only IPV. Factors linked to mutual IPV: witnessing mother-to-father aggression, higher psychological aggression, more frequent partner marijuana use, partner antisocial behavior and higher relationship satisfaction. The only significant predictor of later IPV category was earlier psychological aggression, suggesting that this may be an appropriate target for IPV prevention efforts among college dating couples.

Cross-sectional and longitudinal predictors of mutual and nonmutual intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration were identified in a sample of female college freshmen (N5499). Using female reports, couples were classified as to whether the relationship included no IPV, female-only IPV, or mutual IPV (male-only IPV was too rare to analyze). Mutual IPV was more common than asymmetrical IPV, and women in mutually violent relationships perpetrated more frequent acts of physical aggression than those in female-only violent relationships. In cross-sectional analyses of IPV in the first semester of college, only partner antisocial behavior and psychological aggression distinguished female-only IPV from no IPV; witnessing mother-to-father aggression, higher psychological aggression, more frequent partner marijuana use, partner antisocial behavior, and, surprisingly, higher relationship satisfaction, discriminated mutual IPV from no IPV. Contrary to hypothesis, first semester (T1) IPV did not predict having a new partner in the second semester (T2); however, women who reported more frequent heavy episodic drinking and lower relationship satisfaction at T1 were more likely to be in a different relationship at T2. Prospective prediction of T2 IPV category failed to support the hypothesis that female-only IPV would escalate to mutual IPV. The majority of couples with female-only IPV reported no IPV at T2. After accounting for T1 IPV, the only significant predictor of T2 IPV category was T1 psychological aggression, suggesting that this may be an appropriate target for IPV prevention efforts among college dating couples.

Women more likely to perpetrate IPV and clinically significant emotional aggression (CS-EA) but men more likely to perpetrate clinically significant IPV. Surveyed 42,744 on 82 USAF bases. CS-IPV was defined as
reporting acts of IPV with an impact, which could include reporting physical injury or endorsing an act of high inherent dangerousness (e.g., used a weapon). CS-EA: (a) at least one reported act of emotional aggression that caused (b) significant fear, significant stress, significant depression, or fear (for the victim’s own safety or that of someone she or he cared about) that interfered with functioning.

Objective: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious health concern, but little is known about prevalence of IPV in the armed forces, as military members cope with the pressures of long-standing operations. Furthermore, previous prevalence studies have been plagued by definitional issues; most studies have focused on acts of aggression without consideration of impact (clinically significant [CS] IPV). This is the first large-scale study to examine prevalences of IPV, CS-IPV, and clinically significant emotional abuse (CS-EA) for men and women. Method: A United States Air Force-wide anonymous survey was administered across 82 bases in 2006 (N 42,744) to assess IPV, CS-IPV, and CS-EA. Results: The adjusted prevalence of CS-IPV perpetration was 4.66% for men and 3.54% for women. Prevalences of IPV perpetration were 12.90% for men and 15.14% for women. CS-EA victimization was 6.00% for men and 8.50% for women. Sociodemographic differences in risk for violence were found for gender, race/ethnicity, pay grade, religious faith, marital status, and career type even after controlling for other demographic variables. Conclusions: Partner maltreatment is widespread in military (and civilian) samples. Men were more likely to perpetrate CS-IPV, whereas women were more likely to perpetrate IPV. Specific demographic risk factors were identified for different types of partner maltreatment (e.g., lower rank predicted higher risk for both perpetration and victimization across men and women). Other sociodemographic differences varied across severity (IPV vs. CS-IPV) and across gender.

Participants were more likely to identify the behavior of a male perpetrator as illegal and recommend more severe penalties. There appears to be considerably more ambiguity in the perceptions of female-perpetrated IPV Together, these findings raise concerns as to how jurors may perceive female-perpetrated IPV and similarly, whether male victims of female-perpetrated IPV will seek and receive appropriate assistance.

Using a vignette to depict physical violence by an intimate partner, a 2 (perpetrator gender) 3 2 (participant gender) 3 2 (frequency) 3 2 (intent to cause harm) between subjects factorial design was used to examine under what circumstances individuals perceive: an incident should be illegal, the extent of harm, and appropriate victim and criminal justice responses. There were 868 participants from the Brisbane (Australia) community (48.5% males). The actions of male perpetrators were viewed more seriously and the victims were recommended to seek more forms of assistance when the perpetrator was male. There were few differences in perceptions of violence according to participant gender. The frequency of the violence affected the participant's responses but the intentions of the perpetrator did not. Results are discussed in terms of stereotypes of intimate partner violence (IPV) and the implications for help-seeking behavior by victims.

‘Mandatory Arrest’ laws and “No-Drop” policies may need to be reassessed in light of the research literature on victim empowerment. Discrepancies between national samples mandate a need for more in-depth analysis of the phenomena of IPV outside of a rigid gender-based framework.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has generated a large research literature for the last half-century, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, psychology, and the social sciences. Interventions for victims and perpetrators of IPV have largely been sequestered to separately evolving efforts of law enforcement and the psychotherapeutic community. This article presents a brief overview of the historical evolution and development of these discrete perspectives and identifies and assesses current collaborative interventions rooted in these historical precedents. In conclusion, the authors provide a summative discussion of the most current findings of research into IPV interventions, with a particular focus on the changing roles of race and gender in both the criminal prosecution of IPV and services provided to IPV perpetrators and victims.

One third of women reported that they received couple therapy elsewhere with their husbands and having received couple therapy was associated with improvements in relationship satisfaction. However, 75% of all participants reported that IPV was ongoing and there was no evidence that therapy was associated with declines in violence. efforts to determine when couple therapy is and is not appropriate and how best to make referrals so that couples will follow them are essential areas for IPV research.

Objective: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common among therapy-seeking couples, but some clinical guidelines suggest that couple therapy may be unsafe in the context of IPV. As a result, IPV is often an exclusionary criterion in therapy trials, despite limited evidence supporting this recommendation. To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate subsequent receipt of couple therapy after being denied treatment because of IPV. Method: The female partners from 55 married couples that were excluded from a trial of couple therapy because of male-to-female IPV were assessed approximately two years later. Results: Approximately one third of women reported that they received couple therapy elsewhere with their husbands and having received couple therapy was associated with improvements in relationship satisfaction. However, 75% of all participants reported that IPV was ongoing and there was no evidence that therapy was associated with declines in violence. Conclusions: Despite being told that couple therapy was an inappropriate treatment, a significant minority of women went on to receive therapy elsewhere with their male partners. These results suggest that efforts to determine when couple therapy is and is not appropriate and how best to make referrals so that couples will follow them are essential areas for IPV research.

Almost all studies have shown more injuries as a result of IPV for female victims. The few studies regarding the impact of IPV on health are mixed, with one study finding more negative health effects of victimization for women, another finding more negative effects for men, and three studies finding no gender difference. In the general population, women are more likely to suffer from depresion or anxiety. Among IPV victims three studies found no gender difference, and three found depression as a more likely outcome for women. A larger gender difference appears to be present for posttraumatic stress. Some studies found greater substance abuse for women IPV victims, some found no gender differences, and one found greater substance use for male victims.

Objective: This paper proposes a conceptual model for gender differences in outcomes of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, broadly conceived as including physical, sexual, emotional, and coercive control forms of abuse, as well as stalking. Method: Literature review of PsycInfo and PubMed databases. Results: The literature reviewed suggests these negative effects are not equally distributed by gender-studies indicate that women suffer disproportionately from IPV, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress. The review also finds that women experience greater decreases in relationship satisfaction as a result of IPV. Conclusions: Our review largely supports the contention of feminist theory that gender matters-but we would go further and say that what really matters is power; gender matters because it is so highly correlated with power. We propose that, due to cultural factors that typically ascribe higher status to the male gender, and men's greater size and strength compared to women (on average), women are more likely than men to encounter contextual factors that disempower them and put them in situations-such as sexual abuse-that increase their risk of poor outcomes.